Add contrib.rocks badge

[SaptarshiSarkar12]

Description

Added Thanks to all the contributors section.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Base: 66.02% // Head: 62.52% // Decreases project coverage by -3.49% :warning:

Coverage data is based on head (8944498) compared to base (fd57b87). Patch has no changes to coverable lines.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2768      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   66.02%   62.52%   -3.50%     
==========================================
  Files         118      124       +6     
  Lines        1351     1457     +106     
  Branches      342      361      +19     
==========================================
+ Hits          892      911      +19     
- Misses        422      505      +83     
- Partials       37       41       +4     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/__fixtures__/page.tsx	94.11% <ø> (-5.89%)	:arrow_down:
...components/ApiComponents/Components/ApiHeading.tsx	0.00% <ø> (ø)
...rc/components/ApiComponents/Components/ApiLink.tsx	0.00% <ø> (ø)
...ents/ApiComponents/Components/SourceLink/index.tsx	0.00% <ø> (ø)
...ApiComponents/Components/VersionSelector/index.tsx	0.00% <ø> (ø)
src/components/ApiComponents/index.tsx	0.00% <ø> (ø)
src/components/Article/index.tsx	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/components/Banner/index.tsx	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/components/Codebox/index.tsx	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/components/EditLink/index.tsx	100.00% <ø> (ø)
... and 68 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

:umbrella: View full report at Codecov.
:loudspeaker: Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[ovflowd]

Oh, I think you got me wrong. I meant to say before this (screenshot attached), because those are the footnote URLs.

[SaptarshiSarkar12]

Oh, I think you got me wrong. I meant to say before this (screenshot attached), because those are the footnote URLs.

Done @ovflowd . Please recheck now.

[github-actions[bot]]

Please find a preview at: https://staging.nodejs.dev/2768/

[SaptarshiSarkar12]

@benhalverson Can this PR be merged? Is it ready?

[nschonni]

Not blocking, but I don't think this adds much beyond what is already done in the built-in widget

[ovflowd]

Not blocking, but I don't think this adds much beyond what is already done in the built-in widget

That's what I also think... I believe we might give pause and see if this change really brings value.

Not to mention this will be at the bottom of the README, not really visible there...

[SaptarshiSarkar12]

Not blocking, but I don't think this adds much beyond what is already done in the built-in widget

@nschonni Contrib.rocks image shows upto 100 people whereas GitHub shows only 11 people.

So, in my regard, it's better to include more contributors through the Readme file and

say thanks to them for their valuable contributions to this repository.

[nschonni]

The website does this in the footer by randomly choosing a contributor during the page load

[SaptarshiSarkar12]

@nschonni okay, then, what to do with this PR?

[nschonni]

@SaptarshiSarkar12 like I mentioned above, I'm not going to block it, I just don't see it. Maybe one of the other folks on the project likes it and will land it though

[Trott]

Welcome @SaptarshiSarkar12 and thanks for the PR. This is one of at least 9 PRs like this to various projects to add a "thanks to all contributors" section in the README from you. This is well-intentioned but has downsides as well from my perspective.

1. Anything unnecessary added to the README makes it longer for people to read and less likely that they will find what they are actually looking for.
2. Because this adds more HTML tags, it makes the README less readable in its raw form. While sometimes HTML can not be avoided in README files and other Markdown documents in the repository, its use should be (IMO) minimized to keep the file as usable as possible for everyone, including people who are reading it at the command line , people who are offline or behind a restrictive firewall, and people who choose to work with editors that don't render Markdown.

Both the upsides and downsides of this PR are small. but on balance, I think we should not do this. I'm going to make the decision to close this but another contributor who thinks this should land should absolutely feel free to re-open and ignore my opinion. Again, thanks for the pull request.

[SaptarshiSarkar12]

ok @Trott .